Affirmed and Opinion Filed January 12, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00411-CR 

TEDDIE WILLIAMSON, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1050574-V 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Myers, and Schenck 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

On August 22, 2014, appellant Teddie Williamson was placed on deferred adjudication 

community supervision for three years, with a $500 fine, for possession of a controlled substance 

in the amount of less than one gram. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt based on six 

violations of the deferred adjudication order.1

 Appellant pleaded true to the violations, and the 

trial court sentenced him to 180 days’ confinement. In his first issue, appellant contends the trial 

court abused its discretion and committed fundamental and structural error by exhibiting bias and 

acting as an adversarial advocate in favor of the State. In his second and third issues, he argues 

the trial court erred by violating his statutory and common law rights to allocution. We affirm. 

 1

 These violations included failing to (1) report to his community supervision officer as directed, (2) pay fees as directed, (3) participate in 

drug and alcohol evaluation and/or treatment, and (4) complete community supervision hours. 
 –2– 

Judicial Bias 

In his first issue, appellant argues the trial court violated his due process rights and 

committed fundamental and structural error by exhibiting bias and acting as an adversarial 

advocate in favor of the State when it called the VA hospital to inquire about his employment 

status. The State responds the trial court’s actions did not result in any bias or prejudice against 

appellant. 

Appellant testified during the revocation hearing. He explained he failed to report to the 

community supervision office because he was teaching special education classes in Austin. The 

school district later suspended his certification because of his offense and “everything else [was] 

like a triple affect coming down from there.” 

He told the trial judge he was back on his feet and obtained other employment. He 

worked part-time at both the Department of Veteran Affairs in Waco and at a church. He 

explained he would lose his job at the VA if he spent 180 days in jail because he was “not 

service connected” and “would be considered AWOL.” He hoped for a second chance because 

he lost his first good job and did not want it to happen a second time. 

The court asked, “What else do you want me to know?” Appellant said if given the 

opportunity, he “would not let you down. This will not happen again.” He emphasized this was 

his first time to be put on probation. However, he admitted he was also on probation in Fort 

Bend County for a separate possession charge. When the court asked if the State had filed a 

motion to revoke in Fort Bend County, he responded, “I have a hold in Fort Bend.” 

The court asked for the name and phone number of his supervisors at the VA. The record 

indicates the trial judge tried to call and verify his employment at the VA but no one answered. 

Appellant then said, “I have another job besides that one, if you want to call my second job.” 

The trial judge responded, “I think we’ve done all we can to try to figure this out.” After the 
 –3– 

exchange, both sides rested and closed without further discussion. The court then revoked his 

order deferring adjudication, found him guilty, and sentenced him to 180 days’ confinement. 

“In the Texas adversarial system, the judge is a neutral arbiter between advocates . . . he 

is not involved in the fray.” Brown v. State, 122 S.W.3d 794, 797 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Due 

process requires a neutral and detached judge preside over a revocation hearing. Brumit v. State, 

206 S.W.3d 639, 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). However, a neutral and detached hearing officer 

is not synonymous with a silent observer. Hill v. State, No. 05-14-01445-CR, 2016 WL 

1554932, *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 14, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication). “This is especially true where the judge is charged with developing facts to inform 

his exercise of discretion.” Id. (citing Marshall v. State, 297 S.W.2d 135, 136–37 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1956)). Absent a clear showing of bias, we presume that a judge acted as a neutral and 

detached hearing officer. Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. 

The term “bias” and “prejudice” do not include all unfavorable rulings towards an 

individual, but instead must “connote a favorable or unfavorable disposition or opinion that is 

somehow wrongful or inappropriate, either because it is undeserved, or because it rests upon 

knowledge that the subject ought not to possess.” McDaniel v. State, No. 05-15-01086-CR, 2016 

WL 7473902, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 29, 2016, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication). Judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or 

even hostile to counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality 

challenge. Id. Further, bias almost never can be shown based solely on the judge’s rulings in a 

case. See Charboneau v. State, No. 05-13-00340-CR, 2014 WL 7476392, at *4 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Dec. 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Liteky v. United 

States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (judicial rulings “can only in the rarest circumstances evidence 

the degree of favoritism or antagonism required to establish bias”)). “Expressions of impatience, 
 –4– 

dissatisfaction, annoyance, and even anger” in the ordinary conduct of court administration does 

not establish bias. Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555–56. Rather, judicial remarks during the course of a 

trial will support a bias or partiality challenge if “they display a deep-seated favoritism or 

antagonism that would make a fair judgment impossible.” Id. at 555. 

After reviewing the record, we conclude the trial court did not display bias or prejudice 

towards appellant thereby establishing a detachment from his role as a neutral and detached 

hearing officer. Initially, we note this was a revocation hearing; therefore, there were no 

concerns about the potential impact the judge’s comments may have had on a jury. See, e.g., 

Peterson v. State, No. 05-12-01417-CR, 2013 WL 5776287, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 24, 

2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). The record does not indicate the trial 

judge predetermined his sentence. In fact, the trial court imposed the minimum sentence for a 

state jail felony, indicating the trial court took leniency on appellant rather than imposing a 

harsher sentence despite appellant violating his community supervision requirements. 

Further, a judge is permitted to directly question a witness, including a defendant, when 

seeking information to clarify a point. Conner v. State, No. 05-15-01004-CR, 2016 WL 

3144180, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 2, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication). The trial judge questioned appellant about his employment. However, the record 

indicates the trial court also attempted to call and verify appellant’s employment with the VA, 

which was an attempt to obtain extrajudicial information. But, the trial court said he was unable 

to reach anyone. Therefore, the record indicates the judge did not obtain any “knowledge that 

the subject ought not to possess.” See McDaniel, 2016 WL 7473902, at *4. As such, we cannot 

conclude the trial court’s sentence was based on extrajudicial information, indicating “such a 

high degree of antagonism to make a fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555; see 
 –5– 

Conner, 2016 WL 3144180, at *2 (“Without evidence in the record that the judge improperly 

considered an extrajudicial source, we cannot conclude the judge’s actions were improper.”). 

In reaching this conclusion, we are unpersuaded by appellant’s reliance on Taylor v. 

State, No. 05-13-01369-CR, 2014 WL 7476393 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 30, 2014, no pet.) (not 

designated for publication). In that case, the defendant and his wife testified during his 

revocation hearing that he had been gainfully employed and changed his life by assuming 

responsibility for his family. Id. at *3. He submitted a letter of employment supporting his 

claim, which was “pivotal to his plea for mercy.” Id. The trial court called the employer and 

learned the defendant had been fired. Id. After making the phone call and returning from a 

recess, “the trial court appeared to be angry and expressed an unwillingness to continue the 

proceedings to allow defense counsel to subpoena the witness with whom the trial court had 

spoken.” Id. We concluded these were not the actions of an unbiased judicial officer, and the 

defendant was deprived of his due process rights and entitled to a new punishment hearing. Id. 

Here, although the trial judge attempted to verify employment, he admitted he was unable 

to do so. The record does not indicate the trial judge thought appellant was lying or that he 

returned angry or with any unwillingness to continue the proceeding. Rather, the judge asked 

both sides if they had “anything else,” and both said no. Thus, we cannot conclude the trial 

judge’s actions overcome the presumption he acted as a neutral and detached hearing officer. 

Brumit, 206 S.W.3d at 645. We overrule appellant’s first issue. 

Allocution 

In his second issue, appellant argues the trial court violated his statutory right to 

allocution. The State concedes the trial court erred, but argues appellant has not shown harm 

under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(b). 
 –6– 

“Allocution” refers to a trial judge’s asking a criminal defendant to “speak in mitigation 

of the sentence to be imposed.” Eisen v. State, 40 S.W.3d 628, 631–32 (Tex. App.—Waco, 2001, 

pet.ref’d) (quoting A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 44–45 (Bryan A. Garner ed., 2d ed., 

Oxford 1995)). Article 42.07 sets out the procedural rule implementing allocution. TEX. CODE 

CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.07. It requires a defendant be asked whether he has anything to say 

about why the sentence should not be pronounced against him. It limits a defendant’s response 

to three reasons to prevent imposition of sentence: that he (1) has received a pardon; (2) is 

incompetent to stand trial; and (3) is not the person convicted. Id.; Brown v. State, No. 05-07-

00816-CR, 2008 WL 1810315, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 23, 2008, no pet.). 

Appellant has not claimed that the three reasons articulated in article 42.07 apply to him 

or that he was harmed in any other way by the trial court’s error. Rather, the record reflects 

appellant had the right to present evidence at his revocation hearing supporting his mitigation 

request. Appellant took the stand and defense counsel said, “Please tell the judge what you 

believe should be the right thing to happen to you.” Appellant asked “to be reinstated on 

probation.” He testified he was employed and if given another chance, he would not let the court 

down. He attempted to show responsibility by explaining he was taking annual leave from his 

job to be present at the hearing. After appellant testified, the trial court asked defense counsel if 

it had anything else to which counsel answered, “No, judge.” Thus, the record indicates 

appellant was given the opportunity to “speak in mitigation of the sentence to be imposed.” 

Eisen, 40 S.W.3d at 632. Further, appellant has not indicated what additional mitigating 

evidence he would have raised if given the opportunity to address the trial court free from crossexamination. Accordingly, appellant was not harmed by the trial court’s error. See, e.g., Garcia 

v. State, No. 13-10-00281-CR, 2010 WL 4156458, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 21, 

2010, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication); TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b) (any non-
 –7– 

constitutional error that does not affect substantial rights must be disregarded). Appellant’s 

second issue is overruled. 

In his final issue, appellant argues the trial court violated his common law right to 

allocution. We have previously questioned whether Texas recognizes a common law right to 

allocution. See Gallegos-Perez v. State, No. 05-16-00015-CR, 2016 WL 6519113, at *2 fn.4 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 1, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). 

Regardless, as explained above, appellant has failed to show any harm from the trial court’s 

alleged error. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b); see also Amaya v. State, No. 05-16-00309-CR, 2017 WL 

85421, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 10, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for 

publication) (assuming common law right to allocution argument was preserved, record indicated 

appellant offered evidence in mitigation of punishment and had opportunity to tell court what he 

thought was relevant to sentencing). We overrule appellant’s final issue. 

Conclusion 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

170411F.U05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –8– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

TEDDIE WILLIAMSON, Appellant 

No. 05-17-00411-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F-1050574-V. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Myers and Schenck participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered January 12, 2018.